Tony Names the Date

It’s official at last. Like setting a wedding date. Or a series of concerts by your favourite band. Mr. Blair is to step down on June 27. Mark it on your calendar.

The press in the UK has not only been speculating promiscuously on when he would go but have been daily detailing his ‘farewell tour’. Tony, it seems has been taking every chance in the last weeks to plant in the mind of the public the terms of ‘his legacy’.

Although there other factors have to be considered, I think it is noteworthy that he chose to announce his departure shortly after Tuesday’s historic swearing in of a new First and Deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland. He will be seen to bow out basking in the light of at least one major peace deal.

Mr. Blair will claim Northern Ireland to be part of his legacy, and I do think he is entitled to do so. He was the first UK PM for many years to take a ‘hands on’ approach to the situation. Previous PMs, (with the exception of a beleaguered John Major who leading the viciously divided Conservatives on economic and social issues, and with a cut-throat atmosphere on his back benches, possibly found Belfast relaxing), had tended to sidestep the issue, thinking (and who can blame him) it was complex beyond reason, impossible, even intractable. But Tony got on the airplane each time, and with his chesire-cat smile and his boundless enthusiasm knocked heads together – so to speak. He is not the only person who deserves credit for Tuesday’s relevance of course but he is the only player to have just announced he is to step down.

His legacy, I suspect, will be the legacy of any politician. In some places he will be seen as a great man, a man who brought change and prosperity while in others he will be derided, barely missed. His achievements as party leader cannot be denied. And God knows the UK needed something different after 18 years of devastating and then inept Tory rule. But I suspect history will be divided on what his true worth is.

As someone who spent some of their childhood in Belfast, who witnessed the violence, the fear, the disintegration of normal life, I respect and admire what he has done for the province. And the Labour party under his leadership has made important inroads into tackling discrimination in the workplace, in attempting to restore some validity to public services, in bringing marginalised sectors of UK society into the mainstream, into promoting a dynamic and more contemporary view of being British.

But for all that, as Mr. Blair bows out, I cannot help but think of the daily reports of violence and conflict from Iraq and how his unconditional support for the Bush administration has compromised the UK’s standing on the international stage. And ‘farewell tour’ or not, Northern Ireland or not, spin doctors or not, the true legacy of those decisions has yet to be understood.

You might also like

“I cannot help but think of the daily reports of violence and conflict from Iraq and how his unconditional support for the Bush administration has compromised the UK’s standing on the international stage.”

That seems to be a matter of perception. Listening to some of the news coverage here in the US, you’d think that Blair’s staunch support of the Iraq war has actually boosted Britain’s standing in the world more than anything else possibly could have. And that was just on BBC World News.

Mind you, they’re well aware that they’re preaching to the choir somewhat. Americans love Tony Blair. They respect him for being the first to stand alongside their country on 9/11 and for staying the course ever since, even throughout what most now realize is a stupid war. He’s sustained the “special relationship” and helped bring it closer together than at any time since the days of Thatcher and Reagan. Perhaps even closer: Tony and George seem never to have exchanged a cross word, whereas Mag ‘n’ Ron certainly had their acrimonious fallings-out – about which Thatcher pulls no punches in her memoirs. Whether this tightening of the relationship will turn out to have been the best thing for Britain (and/or for America), history will no doubt judge.

http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

You’ve got to have some respect for loyalty, and Blair has shown a lot more of that and a lot more backbone than I would have expected of him when he first took office.

Dave

STM

Yes, I must say he shocked me as well. The view from Down Under, even among many of those who don’t agree with the conduct of the continuing war in Iraq, Blair has BALLS, and big ones. If he’d been a Conservative PM, you’d almost have expected that’s he be the first to stick his hand up when Dubya asked.

But being a Labour PM, and having to settle all the fractious factions of the Labour Party, means you need even more balls to what he did because you are copping it from within as well as out.

I don’t like Aussie PM John Howard one bit, as I believe he’s a puppet of the US because of his own agenda on the world stage and is a man given to gross deceit. Blair, however, clearly is his own man. Both supported Bush.

The big difference: Blair did it because he believed it was the right thing to do, not because he wanted anything out of it. Indeed, it’s probably been his undoing.

And in the wash-up, whatever your political views and feelings on the WMD debacle, no right-thinking person can possibly disagree with the real premise for going to war: that the terrorists are out there, in numbers, and they exist for one purpose and one purpose only – to blow the living shit out of the lot of us.

I say, Good on you Tony. I hope Gordon Brown can fill his shoes, as they are big ones.

http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

And, of course, there’s one undeniable fact about Iraq. Al Qaeda is there, and we’re fighting them – which was, after all, the whole point of all of this.

Dave

http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

Dave, are you saying that Al Qaeda was in Iraq at the time of the invasion?

http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

Chris, are you saying that where they are now is not a hell of a lot more relevant?

Dave

Dr Dreadful

No use crying over spilt milk, I guess. But the only reason al-Qaeda is in Iraq now is that there are lots of juicy American soldiers to eat.

http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

Dave, I would say that the USA’s acts of revenge have caused more problems than they have solved…

bliffle

I thought the point was to stop WMD. No, wait, I thought the point was to democratize the Middle East. No, wait…

Because, if the point was to stop AQ and OBL we would surely have pursued them in Afghanistan, even into Tora Bora, wouldn’t we?

bliffle

Or is ol’ Dave just improvising alibis, ad libitum, for GWB and cronies. As usual.

zingzing

yeah, i guess we could of picked just about anywhere in the region to start a civil war, hoping to bring al qaeda into it… but why didn’t we just let it happen in afghanistan? or why not just take it to iran? aren’t we going there next anyway? honestly, wherever the u.s. military goes, there goeth a.q., so why not pick a nicer locale? like switzerland. at least the swiss would stay out of it. then we could have our little fight with a.q. over there. in the alps. and we could see pictures of big-breasted blondes running through bombed out streets and tumbling churches, arms hanging by shreds of skin, etc. man, i’d join up. nothin like a little fightin, i say. but i ain’t going to no desert. that’s just stupid. maybe the u.s. military and al qaeda should plan their vacations better.

Nancy

Yah, but Zing, Switzerland has no oil, man. No reason for Dubya to go ‘liberate’ the Swiss, y’know?

MCH

I’m convinced the main reason for the invasion was so all the chickenh… er,um… war-wimps can get their rocks off spouting and writing macho military slogans…

zingzing

true, but i’m just following up on dave’s “fight them there, not here” argument for continuing the war. just move it to more beautiful surroundings i says. a lot more americans are willing to go to switzerland rather than iraq.

and really… wouldn’t it be easier to fight a.q. there? no more “is he or isn’t he my enemy” bullshit. or at least a far smaller margin for error. i mean, who ever said you have to fight a war in “our” country or “their” country? just pick a spot and fight it out. switzerland is fantastic this time of year! it’s really just like a boxing match. and switzerland hasn’t had a good boxing match in many years.

troll

Zing – *why didn’t we just let it happen in afghanistan?*

I suspect that the thinking in part was that the terrain in Afghanistan is way too gnarly especially for an army geared up for a sandy desert war

…and we didn’t take it to the Swiss because they would have kicked our assets in short order

http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

Or is ol’ Dave just improvising alibis, ad libitum, for GWB and cronies. As usual.

The next time I provide an alibi for Bush and company will be the first, Bliff.

But I do like to play Devil’s Advocate in the face of the constant barrage of irrational invective.

Dave

STM

I don’t understand why being on the left in America – as opposed to the left elsewhere – means having to toe the line in regards to the folly of Iraq and Afghanistan and George Bush’s poorly named and executed but still relevent war on terror.

I would have thought a litany of mass murder that has included lunatics flying jets into New York skyscrapers, bombing the London underground and a double decker bus and blowing the shit out of innocent Aussie kids in a Bali nightclub would be all the proof you’d need to stand up to these bastards – no matter what side of the fence your politics lie.

http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

Stan, a lot of Americans just didn’t get the message of 9/11 or the overall history of terrorism in the last 30 years or so. America is a country which is huge geographically and in population, and most of us are intellectually and physically isolated from these events. They registered initially, but the momentum of complacency soon overwhelmed them, and nothing which has happened since 9/11 has been of a sufficient level of drama to wake most of the complacent masses back up.

The left has a political agenda in which any terrorist is automatically a hero, especially if they attack the US or our allies, and that viewpoint doesn’t allow for the consideration of the implications of 9/11 or other acts of terrorism directly against America. For them we’re automatically the bad guys and deserve whatever we et.

dave

http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

I would have thought a litany of mass murder that has included lunatics flying jets into New York skyscrapers, bombing the London underground and a double decker bus and blowing the shit out of innocent Aussie kids in a Bali nightclub would be all the proof you’d need to stand up to these bastards – no matter what side of the fence your politics lie.

Just one of the reasons I don’t believe you’re as “liberal” as you say you are, Surfman. I agree with you, BTW, but US liberals, as you point out, don’t.

Perhaps what you and I talk out about are just different definitions of the term? We don’t seem to disagree on all that much; only the gun issue comes readily to mind…

STM

Mate, Labor is the party of the left here. I’ve worked for it (for money, too), love it and all it stands for, and I’ve never voted Liberal (the party of the Right here) in my life and never will because I don’t like to see the average Joe driven in to the ground because it suits a government that only cares about big business and people making money at the expense of others when there is hardly any loss to them if some of it is shared around a bit more.

However, that doesn’t mean I can’t support governments of whatever persuasion who are quite clearly doing the right thing in standing up to an international network of fanatical terrorists who only want to kill, not talk – no matter the flaws in the way that’s been executed.

Both of you know I have a personal reason to feel this way, and it goes beyond politics. The young girl in question, if you remember my Bali story, was the daughter of a wharfie – a waterside worker and union man.

Remember namby-pamby Neville Chamberlain’s “Peace in our Time”? A good man conned by a mass-murdering bastard, because he didn’t have the wherewithal to see the truth.

I am not comparing myself to Tony Blair, but it’s worth noting he’s a Labour man as well. I hope history judges him kindly.

http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

I would totally support a coherent policy that sought to improve the world by taking out evil mofos of all types. What happened post 9/11 wasn’t it.

STM

Well, that’s a bit what we’ve been saying Rosey. Stand up to them but execute it differently. Bush was on the right track, but with 20-20 hindsight, it was the wrong fucking train. Still, the bastards aren’t going to go away and time soon.

Dr Dreadful

Americans are and were complacent about a lot of international events, not just terrorism. But I can’t help thinking that 9/11, as horrendous as it was, was something of a fluke. There have been no terrorist incidents of any significance on US soil since, and prior to that day there had been only two ever (WTC ’93 and Oklahoma City), one of which wasn’t even the work of Islamic extremists.

So there’s certainly a case for questioning whether the reaction of the US and its allies to 9/11 was (a) overkill and (b) misdirected.

http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

So there’s certainly a case for questioning whether the reaction of the US and its allies to 9/11 was (a) overkill and (b) misdirected.

Possibly. Or, the flip side of that coin is that the “overkill” is working.

Glass half empty/half full…

Dr Dreadful

Ah yes, but who is the overkill working for? Trillions spent on the war = bollixed-up US economy = partial achievement of aims of al-Qaeda, i.e. destroying Great Satan.

Imagine if after 9/11 we’d just picked ourselves up, dusted ourselves off and carried on as if nothing had happened. How that would have annoyed Osama…

http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

“Ah yes, but who is the overkill working for?”

According to the glass half full viewpoint: US; since as you said, there haven’t been any attacks since 9/11.

“bollixed-up US economy”

We have accumulated a lot of debt, true, but the economy itself is doing very well: lowest unemployment in years, record NYSE, consumer spending up, etc., etc.

Imagine if after 9/11 we’d just picked ourselves up, dusted ourselves off and carried on as if nothing had happened. How that would have annoyed Osama…

True. Maybe to the point of attacking us even more viciously.

Is the objective annoying OBL or defeating AQ?

http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

Just one of the reasons I don’t believe you’re as “liberal” as you say you are, Surfman. I agree with you, BTW, but US liberals, as you point out, don’t.

Which might mean that STM (and you too) is a lot closer to the real definition of liberal than so-called US liberals who are pretty damned far away from it.

Dave

http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

I would totally support a coherent policy that sought to improve the world by taking out evil mofos of all types. What happened post 9/11 wasn’t it.

Christopher, may I direct you to this list of al Qaeda leaders killed or captured since 9/11 – mostly in Iraq. It lists over 40 names, many of them very familiar to those following the history of al Qaeda – you can look them up on Wikipedia for more info.

Dave

MBD

#3… “Blair did it because he believed it was the right thing to do, not because he wanted anything out of it.”

The right thing to do?

He didn’t want anything out of it?

How about it was the right thing to do because Blair believed Bush was going to do it with or without him. And that Blair wanted to be able to sing “Mission Accomplished” along with Bush.

And that would put lil’ ole’ Tony right up there alongside Margaret Thatcher, the “Iron Lady” of the Falklands.

That’s heady stuff for any politician.

Zedd

Stan

All thinking people are against terrorists. Dave and Clavos are mad in their perception of reality.

What “liberals” and thinking Americans are against is us doing things which provokes people. In any situation it is important to understand the role that you play in it.

What “liberals” or just thinking people don’t want is for us to fight the wrong war. Iraq was the wrong war.

What thinking people are against is the US doing things which will exacerbate ill feelings against us and eventually cause us to be in more harms way.

What thinking people are against are hard and fast solutions that are applied to unrelated situations; they are counterproductive and actually injurious to us.

What thinking people are for is creating the safest possible environment for the US. Forget having balls and all of that rubbish. Provide solutions which will give us the best outcome.

As for Blair having balls, I missed that. Balls about what? You read the Downing Street memo. You know that the Brits were aware that this war was manufactured. What was he ballsy about???

http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

All thinking people are against terrorists. Dave and Clavos are mad in their perception of reality.

I wouldn’t say we’re mad, just bewildered that you can say things like the above, never having an inkling that you’re classing yourself as a non-thinking person.

What “liberals” and thinking Americans are against is us doing things which provokes people. In any situation it is important to understand the role that you play in it.

What you are saying here is that we should bend over and take any abuse offered to us, rather than ‘offend’ anyone. That’s not liberal, it’s suicidally stupid.

What “liberals” or just thinking people don’t want

Do stop talking as if you represent liberals and thinking people. You are clearly neither. Based on your past comments you hover somewhere between socialist and fascist.

is for us to fight the wrong war. Iraq was the wrong war.

Perhaps, but it’s what we’ve got, so let’s make the most of it.

What thinking people are against is the US doing things which will exacerbate ill feelings against us and eventually cause us to be in more harms way.

What thinking people realize is that you can’t appease terrorists and there’s no point in kowtowing to those who hate you already. You’re not going to win them over by being their bitch. Then they just add disdain to their hatred.

What thinking people are against are hard and fast solutions that are applied to unrelated situations; they are counterproductive and actually injurious to us.

You mean ‘hard and fast’ solutions like an arbitrary timetable for pulling out of Iraq unrelated to what progress is made in the country?

What thinking people are for is creating the safest possible environment for the US.

No. Thinking people know that sometimes you have to take risks to preserve freedom. Your philosophy is the philosophy of mindless sheep who sacrifice everything for the illusion of safety.

Dave

MBD

Dave says,

“You mean ‘hard and fast’ solutions like an arbitrary timetable for pulling out of Iraq unrelated to what progress is made in the country?”

When you’re in a hole, you don’t get out by arbitrarily digging deeper.

One more plan, one more year, one more general, one more hundred billion pissed away, one more soldier killed every few hours, one more speech by Bush, one more speech by Uncle Dick… when do we put an end to this crap?

As we did in Vietnam. Can’t win ‘em all.

Most Iraqi don’t want us there, most Americans don’t want us there, most of the world doesn’t want us there…

But Dave Nalle wants to be there.

Halliburton needs brave, stalwart, patriotic people like Dave to volunteer for the rat hole. Google has 332,000 links for ‘Halliburton recruitment.’ Dave, you can be there in a matter of days. I believe you can get a tax break, maybe a bonus if you re-up.

Most believe that after FOUR YEARS of digging, without any progress, it’s time to crawl out of the hole.

Dave, you want to stay there? Halliburton can help you out. Write us when you get there.

Good luck.

MCH

“Thinking people know that sometimes you have to take risks to preserve freedom.”
– Dave Nalle

Are you referring to yourself? And if so, please enlighten us on any “risk” you’ve ever taken to “preserve freedom.”

http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

Most Iraqi don’t want us there,

But at the same time polls show that most of them realize that they need us there.

most Americans don’t want us there,

Most Americans don’t want us FAILING there. If we were achieving our objectives AND the media was reporting on it, the polls would be very different.

most of the world doesn’t want us there…

Most of the world thinks our government should be dissolved and our wealth and resources should be divided up between the least deserving nations in the world. Most of the world is run by madmen and fools.

But Dave Nalle wants to be there.

I do? You might want to actually read the things I write sometime. I never wanted us in Iraq, but I do see the obvious necessity that we be there as things exist now.

Dave

MBD

Dave, Halliburton needs volunteers like you who see the obvious necessity that we be there as things exist now.

Let us know how things are when you get there.

http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

MBD, Halliburton doesn’t need retired historians who run small software businesses. I’ve got two friends working for them, and I do my part by keeping plenty of Halliburton and KBR in my portfolio to show my support.

Dave

MBD

Dave, Halliburton needs anyone who sees the obvious necessity that we be there as things exist now. They will take you even with your obvious limitations.

And having two friends working for them and keeping Halliburton and KBR stock doesn’t count.

http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

Dave, you can direct traffic for all I care! Your remark in #28 above has nothing at all to do with my point.

Zedd

Dave

Your response in #31 only proves everything that I stated. What are you talking about? You actually provide solutions for problems that haven’t been spelled out. Don’t you find that problematic?

You cant have an answer for foreign policy before you articulate what the problem is. BTW the problems vary so the solutions will too.

You actually took the time to respond point by point, creating my ideology (in your mind) then responding to what YOU made up. WOW!

If you lack appreciation for those who see details beyond the wrestling ring it is fine. However don’t pass yourself off as possessing some sort of folksy logic which supersedes reason. There is no such thing. Reason is reason.

http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

Christopher, you said you’d support a policy which would ‘take out evil mofos’. I pointed out that the war in Iraq has done just that. How is that not a response?

Dave

http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

No Dave, I said that I’d support a coherent policy and that what has happened post 9/11 wasn’t it. Try and pay attention will you, it’s pointless having a discussion if you aren’t listening…

Zedd

Dave #28

Citing this list is problematic on so many levels.

The one that I will focus on other than that there are ONLY 41 people on it is that these individuals are tied to Al Zarqawi. Al Zarqawi is not an Iraqi. Al Zarqawi was not a full fledged member of Al Qaeda on 911. Al Zarqawi went to Iraq in 2002 after we started making noise about wanting to do something in Iraq.

Zarqawi used the name of Al Qaeda as a recruiting source in Northern Iraq even though he was considered to be a network affiliate of Al Qaeda.

Zarqawi actually negates our reason for going into Iraq to fight terror. Prior to 911 and our threats to go into Iraq, Al Qaeda was not in Iraq. Your 41 dead would not have existed in Iraq if we had not focused on Iraq in the first place.

http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

Zedd, your argument makes no sense. How would it have been better for us if those terrorist leaders and their hundreds of unlisted dead followers had been alive carrying out terrorist acts somewhere else rather than dead in Iraq?

You seem to miss the basic point that we’re trying to stop terrorism, not just bin Laden.

dave

Zedd

Dave

Listen. Or in this case FOCUS!

You reply to things that have never been stated. You just make things up and respond to them as if they were said. Do you feel that defeated and incompetent intellectually? If your ideas are good they will prevail. You don’t have to switch the discussion just so you seem right. Focus on what is being discussed and quit running all over the place.

I’d love to have a great debate or dialogue about this subject matter but we are not going to do that because you are going to run every time. I truly want to understand anything that works.

Zedd

Al Zarqawi was not a major operative prior to our posturing. We envibed his resolved and cache’. he would not have these followers and they wouldn’t have the hundreds of followers that you speak of if it weren’t for our irresponsible tendency beat our chests.

In the same way that 911 caused young men to volunteer for service in this country, our threats and posturing causes young Islamic men to volunteer for service as well. It is the responsibility of our leaders to understand the affects of the threats and even propaganda that they deciminate. There is a residual affect which expands the “war”. That is neither wise or brave. Its stupid and irresponsible.

MBD

Dave says…“I direct you to this list of al Qaeda leaders killed or captured since 9/11 – mostly in Iraq. It lists over 40 names..”

Dave believes there is cause for celebration over 40 names, but he doesn’t connect it with the number of dead Americans and the tens of thousands of Americans wounded and crippled for life.

I direct Dave to the fact that there have been 3,394 Americans killed in Iraq to kill or capture 40 al Qaeda leaders.

Adjusting for the al Qaeda leaders killed in Afghanistan and those who are still alive, it means that to kill or capture ONE al Qaeda leader it takes ONE HUNDRED dead American soldiers.

How many more al Qaeda leaders have been created since Iraq was invaded in 2003? How many more dead American soldiers will it take to kill or capture ALL al Qaeda leaders if we stay in Iraq?

If al Qaeda wants to continue fighting in Iraq, let the Iraqis do the fighting and dying. If Dave believes so strongly in fighting al Qaeda in Iraq, he can go join them.

MCH

“Zedd, your argument makes no sense.”
– Dave Nalle

I disagree, Nalle. I think Zedd’s argument makes much more sense than yours.

http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

[Personal attack deleted]

Zedd, why don’t you just answer my question in #43 rather than trying to side-step the question as usual?

Dave

http://www.futonreport.net/ Matthew T. Sussman

Everyone’s just, like, so wrong, it’s just … not …… [head explodes]

STM

OK, let’s forget for one moment that the on-going war in Iraq is a) a debacle, b) poorly executed from the start, c) unpopular at home in both the US and Britain, with Iraqis and among islamic militants and Arabs and Iranians generally and d) the reason given for going to war in the first place (WMDs, and Iraq’s state-sponsoring of Muslim extremists) was a total furphy.

It doesn’t change the fact that there were plenty of lunatics out there blowing the shit out of us or planning to blow the shit out of us before the invasion of Iraq. If anyone thinks the US leaving Iraq will mean, as a mate of mine puts it, that Iraqis will soon be dancing happily under gaily coloured kites, and that islamic extremist terrorism will cease forthwith, they have another think coming.

The breed of Islamic militants bent on killing us aren’t that interested in what we do. They’re more interested in what we don’t do – ie, pray five times a day whilst facing Mecca, read the Koran, institute Sharia law, and turn women into goods and shattles covered from head to toe, and live a life-style that died out in the middle ages. It’s got little to do with anything but that. We’re infidels because we aren’t Muslims, or their brand of Muslim at least, and that’s that.

When will you all get this through your heads?

MBD

Dave’s equation of ‘mindless plumbless foolishness‘…

1 = 100…

ONE killed or captured al Qaeda leader = ONE HUNDRED Dead American soldiers.

How long before al Qaeda runs out of their cannon fodder?

Hint: There are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world.

http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

How long before al Qaeda runs out of their cannon fodder?

Hint: There are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world.

“Doggie’s equation of ‘mindless plumbless foolishness’…

1.2 billion Muslims = 1.2 billion AQ…”

Classic canine “thinking”; the whole world’s a fireplug.

STM

“goods and shattles”

Whoops. Make that goods and chattels

MBD

Clavos… You believe the whole world’s a fireplug?

Do you always feel pissed on?

Dr Dreadful

Ba-DOOM-boom-tsssshhhhh…

http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

MBD’s math leaves something to be desired. That’s 40+ al Queda leaders killed, but they’re just the tip of the iceberg. There are hundreds more of their smaller leaders captured, 3000 of them currently imprisoned and thousands more of their footsoldiers dead.

Sure, there are 2.2 billion muslims, but they’re not all fucking nuts. Most of them hate al Qaeda as much as we do, and the Shiites probably hate them MORE than we do.

Yes, Iraq has been badly fucked up. But the one thing about it which isn’t a failure is the body count of al Qaeda and other terrorists killed there.

Dave

http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

Clavos… You believe the whole world’s a fireplug?

No, but dogs do.

MBD

Dave, you don’t like my math? I don’t like your “facts.”

“Sure, there are 2.2 billion muslims.” Try again.

I have observed that neocons never met a fact they liked. I’ve noticed that neocons like to ignore the facts because they are too eager to offer their opinions to be bothered with facts.

If you can’t get your facts straight, don’t bother to confuse the issues with your phony numbers and absurd opinions.

MBD

Clavos… It’s becoming obvious what you are trying to communicate. You believe you are the fireplug…

Zedd

Dave

Re:#43 I didn’t answer the question because it had nothing to do with what I said. You didn’t listen again.

My point was that they wouldn’t exist to need to be killed if we hadn’t created the environment for them to fester in.

I hope that you are not suggesting that the US should kill all people who have a POTENTIAL to stand up against us, because that is all they were prior to Bush’s threats. Being inclined to up rise is not a crime and it certainly doesn’t deserve a death sentence.

Zedd

STM

There are fringe groups in every society. In European countries (Canada, OZ and US included) there are the skinheads for instance among many others.

What makes these groups significantly problematic is when there is an impetus of sorts.

When there is a legitimate problem in society and people feel as though there is no solution, they tend to look for whomever appears to sympathise with their concerns. Fringe groups often take such people by articulating their concerns and then offering solutions through indoctrination which are extreme. The indoctrination process is a long one. When the ills in society keep confirming the propaganda of the organization, the organization becomes the only solution for fighting them.

If we continue to behave as we do towards the middle east, we will continue to en vibe these crazy organizations which don’t represent the large population. However they are gaining popularity because they seem to offer an answer for what the people believe ails them, which is us lording over them.

We were irresponsible and we are now reaping the results of our foolish disrespect for this region. We cant say, “yes we screwed up but now that we know it, we want everyone to leave us alone”. Its too late. We created the power of force behind Al Qaeda. We created the next generation of fighters and suicide bombers. We cant take it back.

We didn’t create Al Qaeda of the Taliban, they were going to be there, as they exist in every society in every form. In the woods all across this nation are people who are just as zealous. If the US government were to alienate or even provoke intentionally, dirt poor, highly religious White people, those groups would be a real problem because they would gain membership in the millions.

http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

Clavos… It’s becoming obvious what you are trying to communicate. You believe you are the fireplug…

Right, poochie. Keep whining…

MBD

Thanks for accepting your role as fireplug.

I feel relieved.

http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

No problem, poochie, you can piss on me anytime.

Just quit whining.

MBD

Thanks for accepting. Now I am totally relieved.

I’ll let you dry out.

http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

Glad to make you happy, mutt.

I’m not wet. it’s virtual pee, and since it’s yours, it’s also unimportant and meaningless.